PredictionsMock2008 Dem Presidential Primary Predictions - Liberalrocks (D-CA) ResultsPolls
Note: The Google advertisement links below may advocate political positions that this site does not endorse.
Date of Prediction: 2008-03-05 Version:11

Prediction Map
Liberalrocks MapPrediction Key

Confidence Map
Liberalrocks MapConfidence Key

Prediction States Won
26 |
52 |
pie
Clinton21
 
Edwards0
 
Obama29
 
Richardson0
 
Other0
 
 

Confidence States Won
26 |
52 |
pie
Clinton10
 
Edwards0
 
Obama22
 
Richardson0
 
Other0
 
Tossup18
 

Analysis

For all those comments about my map being nonsense and comedy, I didnt care then and guess what I REALLY dont now! Although there is a bit of a laugh in my tone now. March 4 would be the source of this new found humor.I have a state score of 38 and missed one state from the time I began. My percentage score is low because I did not change many to the 50% winner margin after Mr Edwards dropped out before Super Tuesday. Since scores appear to matter for some commenting.

I didnt change my prediction the day before the race to keep a high score based on overnight polling. I went with what I thought was possible, with the current polling data demographic's of the particular state and likely turnout in various demographics. I chose not to render a verdict on the race as a whole.

Both Candidates have proven that they will fight for this nomination. It would be foolish to write off eithier one of them, or state that eithier one can not win. Odds may favor one or the other at a certain time but March 4 proved that we need to take it one day at a time as this race has been all over the place.

This race is not over, No matter how much the pundits and media would like it to be due to their own bias.

Lets let the voters of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY select its nominee by the system it has established for itself. Lets have the process follow the course created by the party itself. For myself, it remains to be seen if I will be able to support the final ticket selected.


Prediction History
Prediction Graph


Comments History - show

Version History


Member Comments
 By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-05 @ 22:15:38
Pennsylvania is the next big prize.prediction Map

 By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-06 @ 12:18:53
I agree voters and pledged delegates of the party should decide the nominee.. not the superdelegates :P prediction Map

 By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-06 @ 15:42:37
Superdelegates are part of the system developed by the party. Like it or not its a part of nominating the candidate.I dont care for the electoral college but it exists non the less :P

Last Edit: 2008-03-06 @ 15:48:25
prediction Map

 By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-06 @ 21:34:52
In the same breath you promote democracy in the other thread. I guess following the will of the voters isn't democratic?

Last Edit: 2008-03-06 @ 22:19:31
prediction Map

 By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-06 @ 22:12:06
Superdelegates were created by the democratic party maybe you should take it up with them.Lobby your delegate whatever,
Wait is that a D behind your name, No that would be an IN.
If your so concerned with lack of democracy in the democrats primary process why are you not a democrat?
It is what it is, we should just wait and see what happens it may be a non-issue all together....

Last Edit: 2008-03-06 @ 22:19:09
prediction Map

 By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-06 @ 22:18:54
I'm not a Democrat because I don't like partisan politics, which is also in part why I support Obama. My concern for lack of democracy in the primaries is that the will of the people is going to be ignored in favor of some dream of 'electability' dreamed up by cigar-smoking party insiders.

It totally smacks in the face of everything this country stands for, and as an American citizen I find the notion blatantly offensive. I'd say that if superdelegates picked Obama over the will of the voters as well, by the way.
prediction Map

 By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-06 @ 22:19:21
Assuming, of course, that Obama somehow lost in terms of pledged delegates and the popular vote.prediction Map

 By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-06 @ 22:20:28
Well the election of 2000 did too and people got over that and re-elected George W in 2004 explainable?..prediction Map

 By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-03-06 @ 22:28:28
The insuders of today don't smoke cigers. They pop prozac and suck nicotine patches.prediction Map

 By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-06 @ 22:32:55
LOL so true,prediction Map

 By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-06 @ 22:54:14
My problem is not with superdelegates, it is with the party ignoring the choice of the people. As long as superdelegates retain a ceremonial role, it isn't really a big deal.prediction Map

 By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-03-06 @ 23:05:58
The party will not ignore voters' choice. The question may be, what expression of the voters' choice do they heed? If Clinton pulls ahead in the popular vote totals, while Obama leads among pledged delegates? The the supers will each have to make a decision. If Obama retain the lead in both, he will be the nominee, IMHO.prediction Map

 By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-07 @ 00:28:55
Well with the exception of your last sentence I agree and that was partially my point. Neithier candidate will be able to claim a mandate even if he has slightly more votes and delegates he failed to make the 2025. In that instance the superdelegates act as a tie breaker making one candidate meet the threshold. Again back to my 2000 comparison...

Last Edit: 2008-03-07 @ 00:30:49
prediction Map

 By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-03-07 @ 01:11:32
'the superdelegates act as a tiebreaker' assumes a tie. A 100+ lead in pledged delegates and a popular vote majority would not be a tie, and while arguably not a 'mandate', that candidate will have been clearly the preference of a majority of voters and delegates. Even a slim lead in both would be a lead nonetheless, and I just don't think the supers want to have to defend undoing of a candidate that leads among the voters AND pledged delegates.

Now if HRC ends up leading in the popular vote and is only narrowly trailing in pledged delegates? Thats a tie.

No one is getting 2025 without supers, true. 2025 itself would not really be a 'mandate', but would be a clear majority of delegates. I don't think a party's nominating process confers a mandate. One has to win office to earn a mandate to govern. That doesn't happen until the general.

prediction Map

 By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-07 @ 01:39:05
This argument seems transparently flawed. If superdelegates are part of the system and we are to accept delegate rule -- then why should the national 'popular vote' (of which there is no mention or concept of in primaries that are decided at a state level, let alone in DNC rules) matter at all?

Of course, I reject this notion. But I reject it because I do not believe superdelegates are democratic if they go against the will of the people. This is not how the nomination process was intended to work in the slightest. I believe they were intended to play the ceremonial role of voting along with the will of the people for purposes of showing party unity.

It becomes then determining what the will of the people is. By party rules, Obama will have triumphed in the most states and earned the most delegates -- certainly coming out on top in part of your heralded system. So denying him the nomination on the grounds of changing the rules Michigan and Florida is certainly not at all democratic.

The reality is that right now Michigan and Florida's votes do not count. They will not until such time that their delegations are seated, which I doubt we will see until the convention unless they hold new contests.

So Hillary is in all actuality about 600,000 votes behind Obama. I don't see any current moral argument she has to the nomination.

But I guess that's my two cents.

Edit:

Or, rather, my five cents if you ask Liberalrocks =D

Last Edit: 2008-03-07 @ 01:41:09
prediction Map

 By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-07 @ 01:45:14
Liberalrocks, are you really ok with having a nominee that received less pledged delegates and votes? If you are, how can you explain your earlier remark that the process is democratic?

I'm not trying to poke holes or make anyone look bad here -- I just really wonder exactly what it is you believe. It really sounds like you want Hillary to be the nominee regardless of what the end results might be =p
prediction Map

 By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-07 @ 02:20:43
The fact is we have a contest in which neither candidate can get even close to winning the 2025 (pledged) delegates needed to nominate. The superdelegates will be needed to reach that mark. Obama will lead among pledged delegates that is certain. As there are several contests yet to be counted. Michigan and Florida still has not been figured out. It is up to the superdelegates to decide which candidate represents there constituencies best which candidate can win the battleground states in the fall and which candidate can withstand the republican attack machine, this decision is also made by the voter before it is handed to the superdelegate. Since the voters cant seem to unify behind one candidate and give him/her the 2025, the superdelegates are in place to make a decision and it is also very possible they could go for obama. Several of the Clinton delegates could jump ship if she loses pennsylvania kentucky west virginia, any outcome is possible at this point. There is also a number of unpledged superdelegates, but it is a fact Clinton holds the edge here and many in the DNC are Clinton supporters. My point is the 2025 threshold is set and you must meet that to be the nominee those are the rules. I am fine with a nominee who didnt have enough pledged delegates because the one who lost didnt have eithier.Its 2025 neither candidate will get to that number without superdelegates. The popular vote is a tool at determining which candidate had a favorability edge but this contest has proven that will be tight too unless obama starts winning landslides in most of the remaining states. That will be the only way the end results will represent clear momemtum.

Last Edit: 2008-03-07 @ 02:29:59
prediction Map

 By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-07 @ 02:44:04
Part of the current process in the democratic primary we see now was implemented after George Mc Govern won the nomination in 1972 pushed ahead by anti-war liberals and college kids backing him, however he went on to lose the working class and senior vote to Dick Nixon in the worst landslide ever in November of that year.

Last Edit: 2008-03-07 @ 02:52:39
prediction Map

 By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-03-07 @ 09:41:31
Correct. As I understand it, the party regulars and activists who had been running GE GOTV efforts felt left out and without a voice by McGovern's grass roots campaign. The supers were to give them back that voice. BTW, LBJ won with a larger popular vote margin than Nixon, and FDR had a larger electoral margin in 1936.

Obama currently holds a popular vote margin in Democratic naomination contests, including Florida, of nearly 300,000. So it is, in fact, Clinton that will have to win the remaining contests by large margins to catch up by that measure. She certainly has an oppurtunity to do that, but Obama currently leads.

Momentum is a different measure. If Obama wins 5 of 7 of the states voting in the last 2 months, that could certainly characterized as fairly clear momentum. I don't believe momentum has the same weight as the popular vote, especially after what happend in 2000. True, who, these measures have no role in the selection of pledged delegates, but are factors I would think superdelegates would take into consideration in casting their votes.

I imagine Supers who are hardcore backers of each candidate have already stated their opinions. Those that haven't are waiting for the voters to make their preferences known. If they don't intend to listen to those preferences, why else would they be waiting?
prediction Map

 By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-07 @ 12:52:15
and both Clinton and Obama have many hardcore superdelegate support.prediction Map

 By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-03-07 @ 14:44:59
Certainly.prediction Map

 By: doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-03-07 @ 23:08:14
I usually don't comment on these, but I just have to say that it is very much looking like after all is said and done w/ the big state of PA and the remainders- as well as MI and FL, this is going to end in a situation where Clinton has more popular votes, up to 250,000 more, and Obama has between 50-75 more pledged delegates. So the Dems now will have a candidate that lost the popular vote, but won the delegate count or a candidate that won the delegate count, but lost the popular vote. Take your pick! prediction Map

 By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-03-08 @ 01:42:55
That's entirely possible, doni, but I expect that's if all goes right for Clinton. I imagine its equally possible that Obama maintains an edge of roughly 100 pledged delegates and 100K give or take in the popular vote. We shall see!prediction Map

 By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-08 @ 18:19:34
Michigan and Florida are not going to be reinstated on the old results -- at least not before the convention. Howard Dean has made this very clear. The only choices Hillary has to force his hand are to sue or to wait until the convention and make an official appeal to the rules committee.

As for the popular vote total, I'm not sure she can or will catch up there either. Say she wins Pennsylvania by 300,000 votes, she is still 400,000 behind nationally. And she won't win other states besides possibly Kentucky or West Virginia. Obama will make up that margin in other states.

I'm not sure how you seeing her getting to within 60-70 delegates of Obama either, Doniki... at least without reinstating Michigan and Florida based on the old results. She will net, at most, 10-20 delegates out of Pennsylvania even if she wins there by 20%. I'm not sure she can catch him.

Hillary's best and probably only claim to the nomination is to claim she has won the big states and BG states -- which she is in the process of doing. We'll see if it works or not.
prediction Map

 By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-03-08 @ 20:03:14
The Democrat formula is too complicated.
You can have someone winning the popular vote & not the delegates simply based on their convaluted formula.
Maybe it should have been winner take all.
I guess you may have a clearer decision by now if this was the case.
Hillary will win PA, & if there are re runs in Michigan, & FL she will win there too in my opinion.
Michigan is very similar to Ohio & with her emphasis on the working class & the issues that effect them she will win there again.
prediction Map

 By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-08 @ 21:03:52
This is going to the convention.

I don't see one of them stepping aside, unless Clinton loses Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Florida (if she lost any of these states it would immediately destroy her "I carry the big states and battleground states" argument).

Obama has the legitimate claim to stay in as long as he retains his delegate lead. As Hillary reminded us, delegates decide the nomination -- not states. She has the claim that she can win where it counts.

We'll just have to wait and see who the supers side with.



Last Edit: 2008-03-08 @ 21:04:36
prediction Map

 By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-08 @ 22:27:53
There is a strong support for a re-vote in both Michigan and Florida before the convention we shall see if something can be worked out.prediction Map

 By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-03-08 @ 22:45:38
It should have never gone to a re vote - what a complete waste of time & money.
How officialdom can railroad democracy is completely farcical.
I am confident Hillary will win both states again if it goes to a re vote, with Michigan being the closest due the large African American population who are consistently voting upwards of 90% for Obama (which in my opinion is also farcical).

Last Edit: 2008-03-08 @ 22:46:40
prediction Map

 By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-03-08 @ 22:53:50
Why is the fact that black voters are drawn to the first major black presidential candidate farcical?

No state has yet to go to or schedule a re-vote. It is a bit of a clusterf***, and it make my skin crawl to see these MI & FL politicians get up and say our votes must count, and we can have a new primary, but you can't make the voters pay for it. Where were these politicians when the decision to move ahead in the face of the nat'l party telling them it wouldn't count if they did?? If Hillary's campaign wants to pay for primaries, have new primaries. Otherwise have caucuses. They're cheaper and easier to plan.
prediction Map

 By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-03-08 @ 23:24:04
90% of anyone is farcical.
Unfortunately it smacks of race politics to me.
Especially when the Clintons have a very good record with African Americans.
It's not like they're voting against a pro white Republican.

Of course you'd want a caucus over a primary Wingindy - & I wonder why???
lol
Nice try.

I can see why they don't want to count these votes especially when Obama was not on the ticket in Michigan.
Everyone knew what was going on though - & I believe his vote represents those who voted non committed.

They should not have been penalised for voting early.
Voters have been penalised for a decision that was not their's to make.
It's ridiculous.
How 2 of the largest states in the Union can be left out of the process is a complete & utter joke & something for the Democrats to make sure does not happen in the future.
prediction Map

 By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-09 @ 05:37:50
Agreed as always, Well something needs to be worked out something both sides can agree on because Im confident based on demographics that Hillary can win both states Florida by double digits.prediction Map

 By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-09 @ 05:44:55
A re-vote is looking less likely. It will be interesting if it does happen, though. I think it is important that there are penalties for when states violate the rules of the party. I think the reasonable solution is to probably seat their delegations at a reduced number as the Republicans did and to give Obama the delegates from 'Uncommitted' in Michigan.

This issue is probably not going to be easily resolved.

Last Edit: 2008-03-09 @ 05:49:51
prediction Map

 By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-03-09 @ 06:51:25
I think that's fair who.
Bottom line is they are penalising voters not the party or the candidates.
These 2 states regardless saw some of the largest turn outs so far & Hillary did do well here period - everyone knew who the candidates were & she still won.



Last Edit: 2008-03-09 @ 06:52:27
prediction Map

 By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-03-09 @ 06:53:20
In these 2 states I'm sure there were more votes than all the Rocky Mountains/& caucus states combined.prediction Map

 By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-09 @ 16:12:12
Yeah that is true, but there are a lot of people that probably didn't show up to vote because they knew or thought that their vote wouldn't count. So in a way counting the old results also disenfranchises those people. I believe inevitably that the results would have varied if candidates had been allowed to campaign and air advertisements in those states, as well.

That being said, I doubt we'll get a revote. It's an expensive proposition and it makes the party look sort of foolish. I think its better that the candidates make a deal that is fair (or at least agreeable) to all parties involved and seat the delegates. Dean really dropped the ball on this, as did the governors of these states.
prediction Map

 By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-03-10 @ 00:20:44
I agree.
It's all theoretical as you can get a different result on a different day.
Plus the campaign is now older etc.
So the best they can do is seat the delegates with what they've got I guess.
This is the fault of the National Democrat Campaign Committee in my opinion.
prediction Map

 By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-10 @ 01:43:27
I think that is acceptable if Obama gets 45% of the Michigan delegates and the delegates Hillary wouldn't get out of Florida. It's probably faster and less costly than a revote too.

A revote is simply too undemocratic and embarrassing for the party.
prediction Map

 By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-03-10 @ 20:38:23
Agreed.
Regardless of what might have been I think the vote here would have still been fairly similar if they had both competed.
What's done is done.
Faults all round.
Bottom line is you can't take away the will of the people & millions still turned out to vote here regardless.
I don't accept the argument that many of Obama's people stayed home - how do you explain the large uncomitted vote in Michigan?
Maybe some did, I'm sure but the results still would have been fairly similar I think.
Maybe a few % less for Hillary but she still would have won in my opinion & would do so again here.
prediction Map

 By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-10 @ 23:00:06
Both states need to be seated at the convention period! If the obama campaign takes issue with the current results then we need to revote. They do need to have there voices heard as these are important states If Obama wants it done fairly then lets revote he claims his campaign should be about peoples voices being heard.prediction Map

 By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-11 @ 04:48:33
I think that quick resolution to this problem that allows the delegations to be fairly reinstated needs to occur. Whether that is a compromise based on the standing results or new contests... this shouldn't be settled in August.prediction Map

 By: doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-03-11 @ 10:43:01
You CAN NOT have a quick resolution to a revote. Have you listened to anything that Gov's. Granholm and Crist have said??? It will take, AT LEAST 90 days until a revote can be held!!! The Obama camp has campaigned that the delegates be split, which is ridiculous becuase he didn't win by 50% and it would be very likely that in a revote FL will be one of his biggest losses in the primary season and MI, along with PA, will vote as Ohio did thus assuring a Clinton victory in raw votes. Unless one candidate is caught in some gay sex scandal or is found dead, this will most likely go to the convention. prediction Map

 By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-11 @ 13:34:49
Hmm well given the current news anythings possible.
Its no wonder why Spitzer had to get a hooker I mean look at the guy ofcourse he had to pay for it lol.

Ok just had to lighten the conversation up a bit.
prediction Map

 By: doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-03-11 @ 14:07:10
Okay, I know this is going to sound crude... But the guy I work with has a daughter in NYC. She said that Spitzer is "average" looking" but has a really great body and ass! Check him out in his suit... I bet he's crazy in bed, at least that is my expereince w/ Jewish guys! :)prediction Map

 By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-11 @ 14:12:56
Hmm...Ill take a minute to ponder that, lolprediction Map

 By: doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-03-11 @ 14:39:54
They call him Spitzer, but he doesn't spit? lol... You still stuck on Bayh?prediction Map

 By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-11 @ 15:26:21
Duh ofcourse!prediction Map

 By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-11 @ 15:49:35
You can have a quick resolution if there is no revote in Florida and Michigan -- and I suspect there will not be a revote in either of these states.

Some sort of compromise will be reached.
prediction Map

 By: doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-03-11 @ 16:10:18
Yes, the compromise will be a revote. Howard Dean has given his blessing... The funds are being raised, and Govs Granholm and Crist are ready to proceed in June!prediction Map

 By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-11 @ 19:47:43
I haven't heard of any official announcement. Have you?prediction Map

 By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-03-11 @ 23:55:24
The Democratic Congressional delegation from Florida is opposed to a revote. 90 days will be outside of the primary season under party rules.prediction Map

 By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-12 @ 03:12:24
I read that, it surprised me. I wonder why they oppose it? I figured that they would be the ones in favor of it since they risked the DNC's wrath to begin with.prediction Map

 By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-03-12 @ 05:13:29
Just seat them.
Obama could have campaigned here if he wished, & he chose not to.
He chose to respect the party bosses silly rules over democracy.
So be it.

prediction Map

 By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-03-12 @ 09:34:41
I don't know why, who, but the Congressional delegation had no direct say in the decision to move the date forward. Of course I doubt any of them spoke out about it at the time. The vote in the state legislature was unanimous.prediction Map

 By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-12 @ 17:41:00
Actually, the DNC forbid any of the candidates from campaigning there. "Silly rules" are what keeps the order for freedom to exist.

In the end, it's these same rules that make it impossible for Hillary to win. Obama supporters are often accused of being unrealistic or blind. But the irony is, in this case it is the Hillary side doing so.

The reality is Hillary has absolutely no way of catching up to him in pledged delegates. It is, literally, mathematically impossible. Hillary won two non-contests.

Those results will not and do not count. They will not be counted. The votes don't exist. If Hillary pushes that too far, she will look like she is trying to steal it and in the end it will blow up in her face. Seating the delegations as they are now isn't fair and in the end she doesn't have the votes to make it happen.

It isn't a winning argument, demboy. It isn't one she can or will win. She is better off hoping for a revote and trying to rack up votes for the popular vote moral argument.
prediction Map

 By: doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-03-12 @ 18:36:55
I do agree that Clinton has NO way of catching up in pledged delegates- not a chance. Her only hope is having more raw votes than Obama, which is quite conceivable.

Voter turnout for the first MI and FL was incredibly LOW, for this Dem primary season, considering how incredibly HIGH it has been on the Dem side. It is very clear from many sources that Governors Granholm and Crist are willing to have a revote. Sens. Stabenow and Nelson are willing to have a revote, the Democrats in MI and FL are willing to revote, so what's the problem? Clinton will never catch up, so do a revote and seat the damn delegates from FL and MI.... Why are the people of FL and MI being punished for what the State Dem party and the respective Governors did, by not having their delegates choose the nominee? Guam, and Puerto Rico cant even vote for POTUS and their delegates are being seated, so why not MI and FL. And I'm fully aware that "they did not comply by the rules." But the people of MI and FL, Dem and Rep. never asked to be disenfranchised.

And if Clinton does not want a caucus and Obama doesn't want a mail in than Govenors Corzine and Rendell are willing to meet the states and candidates half-way w/ 15 million dollars to hold a revote! This argument is insane! Are the Dems that stupid to punish MI and FL and their 44 EV's?
prediction Map

 By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-12 @ 21:55:10
A 700,000 vote deficit is a lot of ground to make up. Florida and Michigan don't count in the minds of superdelegates. Because the DNC says so, and they are partisans first and foremost. The undecided superdelegates are party loyalists, not Clinton or Obama kool-aid drinkers like we are. =P

And if there are redo's in Florida and Michigan, you better believe they aren't going to 'count' the old results. Hillary has slim chances at best of catching Obama in the popular vote.

It assumes a lot:

-It assumes she would win any revote. And that the revote would be favorable for Hillary (i.e. a closed Primary). If it is a mail-in caucus, she's toast. If it is a caucus at all, she is toast. Turnout will be low enough for her to not catch Obama.

-This argument also assumes she wins Pennsylvania big. With 6 weeks, anything could happen.

-It then also assumes she wins most of the remaining states after Pennsylvania.

-And that this argument impresses superdelegates to go against the guy with more pledged delegates. Maybe. Maybe not. It's never happened before.

Hillary's case is based on a LOT of maybes. Final verdict? She has no mathematical way of winning outside the off-chance she passes him in the popular vote.
prediction Map

 By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-03-13 @ 09:03:30
I think what this season has proven is that anything is possible.
They wrote off McCain early on, they've written off Hillary.
So we shall see.
Again I think big wins for her in PA, KY, WV, & Michigan, & FL if they get the change to revote.
100 odd delegate lead is not enough.
Neither will reach 2025 without the supers.
Obama has not won it yet.
End of story.
prediction Map

 By: doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-03-13 @ 16:24:50
Though it is late to catch up on th delegate count for Clinton, it is note worthy that, according to the Associated Press, Obama netted 0 (ZERO) delegates this week after the vote in MS, which he won 19 to 14 delgates... Why? Colorado certified its votes from the caucus and of the 10 outstanding delegates, 3 went to Obama and 7 to Clinton for a 35-20 split in Obama's favor. A New York district too close to call, finally certified its delegate to Clinton. Clinton also gained 3 superdelegates on Wednesday.

Last Edit: 2008-03-13 @ 16:25:45
prediction Map

 By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-13 @ 16:49:31
It doesn't matter.. she can't catch up. It's over.prediction Map

 By: doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-03-13 @ 17:48:42
So does that mean I can't state the results of the Colorado Caucus?

Since it's over maybe you and wingindy should get Dave Leip to shut down the Dem Primary forum? Why don't you email him and ask! Because that is the only way you will silence me.

Last Edit: 2008-03-13 @ 17:51:00
prediction Map

 By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-13 @ 18:44:55
How many times are they going to write her off? New York Senate run 2000, New Hampshire Primary, Ohio and Texas March 4. At all points they were writeing her political obituary. Yes the numbers dont look good, but they didnt before the above stated contests eithier. I didnt think she would win New Hampshire. Im so utterly disgusted by the media and the spin that is repeated by surrogates the bias.prediction Map

 By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-13 @ 20:30:03
I'd have to agree with being sick of media spin. Every other day it's some distraction issue about how Obama is supposedly a Muslim or Hillary did this or that 20 years ago.prediction Map

 By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-03-14 @ 00:59:09
Are you going to see Obama this Saturday, Who? I hear tickets sold out in 20 minutes. I think next time he should book Conseco.prediction Map

 By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-14 @ 01:58:50
No, I wanted to go though.prediction Map

 By: doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-03-14 @ 14:13:09
Maybe you can get some tickets from a scalper?prediction Map

 By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-03-25 @ 07:56:44
They're always saying it's over.
Tonight on Fox they were saying possible big big win for Hillary in PA, maybe double figures.
Won't it be sweet!
It's nice to see the Obama "dream machine" eat some humble pie.
Pride befalleth a fall kids.
prediction Map

 By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-26 @ 02:22:02
The pride was on the Clinton side, gentlemen. They let him run away with Iowa and they've been paying for it ever since. Then Bubba talked in South Carolina.

Then Bubba KEPT talking in South Carolina. Not the best decisions made. Hillary Clinton has written her own political obituary.

As her advisers say, she has less than 20% chance of pulling this off.
prediction Map

 By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-03-26 @ 02:59:03
no I think I've seen alot more pride on the Obama camp.
I think Hillary has been more than gracious.
Remember it's Hillary that's running not Bill.
& again if we want to compare spouses Michelle's right up there with the best of em.
prediction Map

 By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-26 @ 14:02:33
She looks like a giant RAT. Nasty woman.prediction Map

 By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-04-05 @ 08:31:21
She could have been a shown a bit more grace - Michelle that is.prediction Map

 By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-04-07 @ 00:47:23
Hillary Clinton doesn't know what grace means.prediction Map

 By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-04-07 @ 01:15:32
Yeah those kinda comments are really going to unite the party around your candidate if he gets it. Hmm yeah that line will really do the trick with us Clinton supporters.prediction Map

 By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-04-07 @ 07:39:43
Please point out where Hillary has supposedly not shown grace.
I think she is a very graceful person.
Remarkably calm in the face of adversity.
Bet you can't find Hillary a. saying she won't vote for Obama if he's on the top of the ticket. b. that she's only proud in America since people started voting for her & c. that Obama's not suitable for President because he comes from a broken home.
All things that Michelle actually said (for point C it was that Hillary was not fit to be President as she could not keep her own house in order).



Last Edit: 2008-04-07 @ 07:40:34
prediction Map

 By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-04-07 @ 07:41:44
& then there's Obama going to that church.
Graceful indeed.
prediction Map

 By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-04-07 @ 15:46:19
"No such thing as pledged delegates"

"As far as I know" in regards to Obama's supposed status as a Muslim

I could go on, but I dont see the point
prediction Map

 By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-04-07 @ 16:03:40
"As far as I know" That was completely fair she does not know every single moment of his life story. Who knows what his travels to africa would reveal? It was the best way to answer the reporters question had she have said she knew definetly then it came out that he was or practiced such.prediction Map

 By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-04-13 @ 02:12:14
I wouldn't say that was lacking in grace.
Crafty maybe.
Certainly more diplomatic than the comments coming from the other side.
How the Obama camp have got away with some of the things they've said & Hillary's been portrayed as the aggressor is beyond me.
prediction Map


User's Predictions

Prediction Score States Percent Total Accuracy Ver #D Rank#Pred
P 2018 Senate 30/35 17/35 47/70 67.1% pie 5 0 334T483
P 2018 Governor 33/36 25/36 58/72 80.6% pie 3 2 56T372
P 2016 President 48/56 29/56 77/112 68.8% pie 14 0 369T678
P 2016 Senate 30/34 17/34 47/68 69.1% pie 7 0 213T362
P 2016 Governor 9/12 6/12 15/24 62.5% pie 5 0 47T279
P 2014 Senate 33/36 24/36 57/72 79.2% pie 60 0 82T382
P 2014 Governor 29/36 17/36 46/72 63.9% pie 53 0 123T300
P 2012 President 55/56 46/56 101/112 90.2% pie 97 1 77T760
P 2012 Senate 32/33 22/33 54/66 81.8% pie 48 0 40T343
P 2012 Governor 11/11 7/11 18/22 81.8% pie 12 0 24T228
P 2012 Rep Primary 44/52 26/52 70/104 67.3% pie 67 - 5T231
P 2010 Senate 34/37 25/37 59/74 79.7% pie 71 1 63T456
P 2010 Governor 35/37 21/37 56/74 75.7% pie 44 5 106T312
P 2008 President 51/56 42/56 93/112 83.0% pie 53 1 139T1,505
P 2008 Senate 31/33 15/33 46/66 69.7% pie 4 24 227T407
P 2008 Governor 8/11 5/11 13/22 59.1% pie 2 17 232T264
P 2008 Dem Primary 49/52 18/52 67/104 64.4% pie 24 - 23T271
P 2008 Rep Primary 33/49 16/49 49/98 50.0% pie 7 - 55T235
Aggregate Predictions 595/672 378/672 973/1344 72.4% pie


Back to 2008 Dem Presidential Primary Prediction Home - Predictions Home


Terms of Use - DCMA Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC 2019 All Rights Reserved